The Issues with Innovation

Every truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. -Arthur Schopenhauer.

Today I had the pleasure of attending a presentation. This presentation was done by my mother (Ingrid) to ARTA (Auckland Regional Transport Authority) on behalf of my father(Paul)'s organisation 'Trip Convergence' and their 'innovative' idea of Flexible Carpooling.

Being the offspring of this power-couple, my opinions expressed here are likely to be somewhat biased.. but that's OK - just know where I'm coming from.

ARTA claim to be about "helping find solutions to the traffic challenges facing the rapidly growing Auckland region." Great!

I am relatively new to the whole 'traffic solutions' scene and so I started searching for clear evidence of what ARTA have done to help find such solutions. The most obvious attempt is of course - the Northern Busway.

I was in the northern hemisphere over summer and upon returning south in mid-February, I witnessed the result of this $200 million dollar investment.


Judging by this photograph, this has clearly solved the issue of traffic congestion! ..... not.

According to North Shore City, one bus will run every 3 minutes.

A bus every 3 minutes! Imagine if a car passed along a motorway lane every 3 minutes! It deserves to be better used...

Hold that thought - we'll come back to it.

This is where Paul's company comes into the equation.

The general idea of flexible carpooling, is that it's like carpooling... but it's flexible. What I've done here, is made reference to a schema - carpooling - to get us both on the same page quickly.

But just to recap - you know what carpooling is:

It's a way to share the cost of traveling. It's a way to ease your eco-guilt. It's better for the environment and your pocket. And it's more comfortable than the bus!

But you also know carpooling as that annoying system of organising to share a ride with friends/co-workers/neighbours. It's that system that requires you to be on time. People are relying on you. If you're sick one day, you have to get in touch with someone. If you drop out of the carpool, they might have go through the hassle of finding someone else. *sigh*

So now I'm going to alter that schema with the word 'flexible'. By adding this word to the beginning of 'carpooling', we have just eliminated ALL of those annoying and tiresome definitions of carpooling in a traditional sense.

So what are we left with?

Flexible Carpooling: Better for the environment and your pocket. More comfortable than a bus. Convenient, hassle-free, no commitment required.

Neat-o.

Now I'd like to point out that Paul has been rallying for this idea to happen since... about 2005. (I think).

Today, after Ingrid's presentation to ARTA, Rabin Rabindran, deputy chair, asked "is there any working evidence of this system? Any pilots or small-scale examples?"

Ingird stammered. "Uh.. Seattle is interested. But Seattle want to know why Auckland isn't doing anything."

Ahhhh. According to Geoff Mulgan in the MIT Press/innovations, "Social innovations may be helped by formal market research or desk analysis, but progress is often achieved more quickly through turning the idea into a prototype or pilot and then galvanizing enthusiasm for it."

In Paul's case, I think this may be what's needed. Innovation is risky business and often involves failure of some kind. So governmental organisations are cautious about innovation for good reason - 'appetite for failure is limited in accountable organisations or where peoples' lives depend on reliability'. (innovations/spring 2006).

So whilst Trip Convergence is asking for the support and investment of the government and city councils - in my opinion, a lot could be done to get the public involved/on board, sans-huge dollars, in the meantime.

The 'risk' in this case, is that they will put up money to invest in an idea that won't work (ie. won't get used). That's the only risk as far as I can see? But if the public 'get it', if they demonstrate they can change their behaviour (ride sharing requires a shift in behaviour for most) and are demanding infrastructure to make using the system easier and safer - then the risk that it won't be used, is reduced/contained/eliminated... right?

Now bringing us back to my earlier thoughts on the Northern Busway. Assuming Trip Convergence have a pilot or many small examples of flexible carpooling being carried out around Auckland (by the public, without the safety/membership technology and without parking facilities). Now we have a $200 million busway that lies largely empty. The risk is now minimal. The cost is now minimal. The users have choice (bus or flexible carpool!). And the result, if Auckland decides to implement this? They appear to be leaders in innovation. The traffic congestion is reduced. Tailpipe emissions are reduced. Cost of travel is reduced. And internationally we lead the way for solutions to traffic challenges that many rapidly growing cities worldwide are facing.

Neat-o.